Secular arguments agains birth control anyone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
When I read or hear arguments in favour of birth control in the news I cannot come up with much of an argument against it.
(When the topic is abortion I have arguments that came to me as a teenager that do not depend on the opponent’s belief in God.)
Should I be compelled to write a letter to the editor, say, what reasoning might be compelling to non-believers?
 
Contraception is inherently evil insofar as it is a bastardization of the purpose of the marital act. The arguments against it pretty much mimic the arguments against the abominations of homosexual unions, though contraception is less of an offense against nature. The primary purpose of the marital act is procreation; one cannot frustrate the primary purpose of a moral act without contradicting the natural law. Of course, these people don’t believe in the natural law and worship at the altar of hedonistic materialism. They will never accept reasonable arguments with this as a first principle.
 
  1. Birth Control for females is typically chemical. These can have mild to severe side effects especially if used over a prolonged period of time. It’s good to know what those side effects are, as some women have not been told them. Also, chemically changing the natural functions of the body can have consequences. And why isn’t there more male chemical birth control? Look into that reason and explain to people why.
  2. Condoms are essentially Russian Roulette, but with sperm. 14% - 16% failure rate. Oh sure,the box says 99%. But those are optimal conditions, and how many people are going to use them right under the heat of the moment? The practical numbers are 14% - 16%, depending on the study. All barrier methods fall into this category, male or female.
  3. “Risk Compensation”. Study it, learn it. And inform people what it means. People don’t factor that when the risk is lower, activity increases thus negating the efforts.
  4. There is no true 100% effect way to prevent pregnancy. If you have sex, a baby might happen. You leave the window open a crack, some rain might come in eventually some day. The only 100% method is abstinence.
  5. Naturally following a woman’s cycle is a healthy and effective way to plan your family through the use of NFP techniques. It build communication, trust, and mutual respect between the spouses.
 
Melchior_ is spot on at least with a few of those responses. Tough to sell NFP to secularists, especially when it’s not a married or even dating couple and just “hook-ups.” Building trust and communication really isn’t on the cards there.

All drugs have side effects, so I think the better angle for hormonal birth control or IUDs is that they do act as abortifacients in addition to simply preventing conception. Then fall back to secular arguments that an unborn child, from the moment of conception, has unique and complete human DNA and therefore entitled to all civic rights… especially that of life.

But 2-4 are spot on there. It’s funny how everyone brings up the 3-25% “failure rate” for typical use of NFP but never for any type of ABC. It’s always “this is 99% effective” yada, yada, yada. Well no. The pill is somewhere around 90% for typical use, well below even something like LAM’s typical use and both male and female condoms are around 80-85% effective with typical use. That’s a one in five or so chance of conception and right around not following NFP strict enough. Gee, I wonder why there are so many people who get pregnant despite using artificial contraception!

IUDs and implants are indeed the most effective and “failure” is not caused by user error, it’s usually doctor error, but there’s still 2-4% failure rate there. And they have the most potential side effects and act as abortifacients more than even the pill so you have those arguments there.
 
Are there really any religious arguments against birth control to begin with? The majority of arguments against birth control I’ve seen don’t appeal to any theological grounds and are purely based on natural law and observations that are open to anyone.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
Are there really any religious arguments against birth control to begin with? The majority of arguments against birth control I’ve seen don’t appeal to any theological grounds and are purely based on natural law and observations that are open to anyone.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are a few. Here’s a small portion;
.
.
.
.
.

We call God “father” because like all fathers He initiates the love in our relationship with Him. Much like how a father must initiate the love for his child after it leaves the womb. Yet God is fully masculine and fully feminine. So when Scripture says we are created in the image and likeness of God, but because there are two different sexes there’s a bit of a discrepancy when you first think about it.

Unless, of course, there is a unifying act which makes a man and a woman become one, which in turn is the time that we fully become made in the image of God. This turns sex into a sacred act with a sacred bond, as when a man and a woman join in this fashion they become something greater than the individual parts through truly emulating the image of God. Keep in mind that there are no coincidences within the Catholic Church. None. Even the clothes a Priest wears at Mass have a purpose and meaning. Make no mistake; it is no coincidence that when a man and a woman unify themselves in this fashion, fully emulating image of God, a life can be created.

And when that life is created, this act of becoming one person the potential of a third person comes into being, which ties into the belief of the Trinity. How is this? Well, some people say that the manifestation of the Perfect Love that God has for the Son is the Holy Spirit. If this is the case then truly we can say the love of a man and a woman a child can manifest. In this case we emulate the trinity as well in this sacred act of sexual intercourse, which is why it must be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. And I dare say, based on the preceding paragraphs, that one could say that while having proper sex it is a form of prayer to the Trinity.

Based on these beliefs it is easy to look at being open not just to life, but to God. If our marriage is to unify man and woman and emulate the true image of God, and if it is an act of prayer, then it only makes sense to not hold back, to give without hesitation or restrictions. When we pray to the Lord in the Church we should not hesitate to give Him our all. When we engage in a unifying act with the Lord we should hold back. And we DO have a unifying act with the Lord.

It’s called Eucharist, which when we receive it we consummate our relationship with the bridegroom Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is the conjugal act between the Church (the Bride) and Christ (the Bridegroom). While receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, we must never hesitate to be free and open. And what is the Sacrament that most closely resembles the Eucharist?

Matrimony.

When we carry out the ultimate unifying act between and man and a woman, we should not hold back. God doesn’t with us, we shouldn’t with Him.

At the end of the day…if Marriage are to mirror God’s relationship with the Church, including the consummative act of the Eucharist, we are to mirror that at all times, at all days, and certainly in all ways. No restrictions, no barriers.

Just love. Pure and perfect love, open and free.
 
Could you clarify what exactly your goal would be? For example, are you wishing to argue against a contraceptive mentality or trying to promote NFP? Or both? Or something else? 🙂

I think the former is much more difficult to argue without discussing Christian viewpoints. Unfortunately, the fact is that in our society, people have grown accustomed to separating marital relations from the possible fruits of this intimacy. Even married couples are, at times, fearful of conceiving, and it can be difficult to convince people to cede control (or what they perceive is control).

For the latter goal (i.e., promotion of NFP), I think issues of side effects from contraceptive methods are becoming an increasing concern for women. I certainly find this to be true from anecdotal experience from conversations with numerous women, and there might well be studies to back that up. If women are made aware that there is an effective alternative to their current contraceptive method, they might be more likely to switch family planning methods. For many woman, side effects like mood swings or abnormal bleeding are not insignificant. Sure, all drugs can have side effects, but here there is an alternative.

And nowadays, many people are moving toward a more “natural” lifestyle–everything from eating organically to avoiding drugs unless necessary. There are certainly people who prefer to let their bodies work like they are supposed to.

Expense and convenience are other issues. The great thing about NFP is that it can be very cheap and always available–especially if resources for NFP instruction can be made more readily available and made appropriate for a a more widespread audience.

Many women (again, anecdotally speaking) feel very empowered when they learn NFP. Just go over to the Fertility Friend or Ovusoft boards to see how many women wish they had had such great knowledge about their bodies years ago.

Also, I wanted to give a word of caution about comparing effectiveness rates. I have noticed a tendency among NFP advocates to cherry pick the rates that make their point, whether intentional or not. (Whether or not promoters of contraceptives do so is not the issue here, in my opinion. We need to be as honest and up front as possible.) The fact is that one needs to be careful when comparing rates and studies. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend looking up articles by Robert Kambic. Here is one where he discusses NFP effectiveness: usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/cmrwin00.shtml

My dilemma is always how to promote NFP, knowing that for many people, it will simply replace their contraceptive method. I suppose that at least it will limit the abortions that occur as a result of contraception. And I think that NFP can foster communication in a marriage and help change a couple’s mentality.

Anyway, I’m rambling now. I hope this helps a little. (And although I’ve been reading here for years, this is my first post. So please be gentle. 😃 )
 
Melchior said:
Yes, there are a few. Here’s a small portion;
Click to expand...
I know there are some theological arguments but the Church teaches that we can know that ABC is wrong using our natural reason unaided by divine revelation . So the bulk of the arguments against ABC will be secular and not invoke any religious reasoning at all. The searching that you have to do is looking for theological arguments against ABC not the other way around. If you want to see secular arguments against ABC just go back and read St Thomas or a good introduction to his works. Here is a good book to start with for the OP, amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908
 
A good strategy that I’ve come across is to point out the fact that there were many secular people who opposed contraception for various reasons. I’ll name a few right now.

In March of 1905, Theodore Roosevelt described contraception in a speech as “the one sin for which the penalty is national death, race death; a sin for which there is no atonement.”

Sigmund Freud, (an atheist who once wrote a book on religion called “The Future of an Illusion”) in his writing called “Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis” said of contraception in Lecture XX, “The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.”

(The following quote is important because most secularists wouldn’t dare disagree with Gandhi on anything, no matter what the issue at hand is.)
Mohandas Gandhi, whom secularists love because of his commitment to non-violence, once said, “Artificial methods are like putting a premium upon vice. They make man and woman reckless. And the respectability that is being given to the methods must hasten the dissolution of the restraints that public opinion puts on one. Adoption of artificial methods must result in imbecility and nervous prostration. The remedy will be found to be worse than the disease…If contraceptive methods become the order of the day, nothing but moral degradation can be the result…As it is, man has sufficiently degraded women for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her.” -The Collected Works of Mohandas Gandhi, Volumes 2 and 4.

T. S. Eliot once said that by accepting contraception, “The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized, but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in waiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization and save the world from suicide.” -Thoughts After Lambeth

If you want to have fun with whoever you’re trying to convince, state the following quotes for them, but don’t reveal who said them. See if they agree, then reveal who said them.

It’s also important to point out the fact that almost all of the original suffragettes were against not only abortion, but contraception as well. They saw contraception as giving men license to further lust after women without fear of consequence. See Lisa Gordon’s Voluntary Motherhood: The beginning of feminist Birth Control Ideas in the United States.
Looking back, we can see that many of our worlds ills have come from a misuse of sex. For example:
(Q) What is the #1 profile in poverty?

(A) The single mother.
And whenever you see a single mother, what does that tell you? The odds are very good that some guy came in, had his kicks, and 9 months later said “see ya.”

Many might argue that contraception was necessary for women to be equal to men, but if women have to alter themselves in order to be equal to men, then their equality is a sham.
 
The pill is listed by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen.
 
Societies need the economic engine that young people provide as well as to sustain the elderly.
 
buffalo said:
Societies need the economic engine that young people provide as well as to sustain the elderly.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn’t need society needs to have everyone above the replacement rate- or even net growth.
 
buffalo said:
The pill is listed by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen.
Click to expand...
If one is going to use this argument, I would highly recommend at least skimming the WHO monograph. You see, there is also evidence that combined oral contraceptives are protective against some cancers (e.g., ovarian). That’s going to be a common rebuttal, in addition to concerns about biases and confounders.
 
buffalo said:
Always the dissident.🙂

If they do not maintain they collapse.
Click to expand...
Yes, you need people in your society. However, you don’t need to have substantially more people being born than you do dying.

A modern society does not need growth- our worker productivity is high enough such that working age people may provide for the old without the ‘numbers advantage’ needed by poorer societies- which is precisely why the undeveloped/developing world has much higher population growth rates than we do.

Maintaining population is good- growing depends on the circumstances.
 
Sobriquet said:
Could you clarify what exactly your goal would be?
Click to expand...
One place I may wish to object to ABC is the west`s insistence on importing it into 3rd world countries. Again, I may feel compelled to write a letter to the editor for instance.

Canada’s PM has said that he doesn’t want abortion on the table during the G8 talks, but ABC is part of the package to improve maternal health.

I’ve been out all day and will have to re-read everyone’s responses. Thanks for your insights!
 
The_Reginator said:
One place I may wish to object to ABC is the west`s insistence on importing it into 3rd world countries. Again, I may feel compelled to write a letter to the editor for instance.

Canada’s PM has said that he doesn’t want abortion on the table during the G8 talks, but ABC is part of the package to improve maternal health.
Click to expand...
Just throwing out some ideas for you . . .

One of the biggest arguments people have for bringing contraception/family planning to developing countries is “unmet need”–that women desire to space children or avoid pregnancy but do not use effective methods for doing so. One question then is “why” aren’t they using them. Because they aren’t available? Husband disapproves? (Buy-in from husbands/male partners or community elders is crucial in some cultures in developing countries.) They don’t think they are going to get pregnant? Side effects? Religious objections to contraception? Etc. Where can NFP fit in to fill this unmet need?

People running family planning programs are going to be concerned about things like cost per couple-year of protection. I’m guessing that in the long-term, investing in NFP would prove to be worthwhile. But the problem probably would be related to the up-front time and costs–educational materials/supplies, training of trainers, dissemination, etc. It’s certainly a longer process than, say, inserting an IUD. I don’t know all of what’s out there right now for teaching the simpler NFP methods in low-resource settings.

But really, there is great potential for NFP. Very effective methods. For many methods, no need to worry about supplies. No need for trained healthcare providers to perform procedures. I imagine it’s generally culturally acceptable (although there might be initial barriers over concern about length of abstinence).

I’d look up data about trials related to NFP methods in developing countries. I know they’ve definitely done some in Africa, and then there was the Standard Days Method cycle beads that Georgetown developed and had good success with if I recall.

Of course, most people involved in reproductive health are going to raise questions about STD prevention. But obviously, the majority of artificial birth control methods don’t do a thing about that.

One thing to remember is that there is still so much ignorance about NFP in the reproductive health community. The people who are recommending ABC tend to genuinely think they are helping women. And I won’t dispute that in impoverished areas, a lot of good can come from spacing children (e.g. reductions in deaths among children <5). But it’s unfortunate that NFP is never taken seriously and put on the table as a viable option.
 
Well I have a secular and emotional argument against ABC. Its a good one two.

Introducing a third party into the marriage bed is not going to make anyone happy. When a person wears a condom or diaphragm, they are cheapening the sex act because they are reducing the other party to an object for pleasure. Unless both parties are truly open to new life there only half of the conjugal relationship has been fulfilled. It is the same with chemical or implanted methods. It is introducing a foreign party or object into the marriage bed. It would be like a man having sex with his wife and Durex or Glaxo Smith Kline. I personally wouldn’t want that.
 
Sobriequet,

You say “If one is going to use this argument, I would highly recommend at least skimming the WHO monograph. You see, there is also evidence that combined oral contraceptives are protective against some cancers (e.g., ovarian). That’s going to be a common rebuttal, in addition to concerns about biases and confounders.”

I use this monograph all the time, what you say is true. WHO says hormonal birth control is a Grade 1 Carcinogen (think asbestos) for Breast Cancer and liver cancer. It also says it may have some protective effects against Ovarian etc…

What is more prevalent: Breast Cancer or Ovarian.
Which is more serious: Breast Cancer or Ovarian.
Which has skyrocketed in the Past 40 years : Breast or Ovarian.

The answer to all three of those questions is without a doubt Breast Cancer. WHO is a big distributor of hormonal birth control, they like it. This little counterargument they make is basically a red herring. Ovarian although more prevalent and serious than we would like, doesn’t even begin to compare with breast cancer. Breast Cancer is much more invasive and spreads more quickly due to being in close proximity to major lymph system structures, and if not caught early is very hard to get rid of.

Ovarian Cancer is nothing to laugh at, but it doesn’t spread as quickly, is not as invasive, and can be treated by a hysterectomy, even fairly late in its progression.

Also google breast cancer and Dr. Kahlenborn of Mayo Clinic. He has done research on Birth Control and suggests in some cases can increase one’s chance of aquiring Breast Cancer by 44%

Hormonal Birth Control causes Breat Cancer. This is overlooked by most physicians.
This is very bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top